*Note: I would like to thank Jeff
Ballinger for his helpful comments on this essay.

Executive
summary

This
is the first comparative study to contrast the Global Alliance (GA)
2001 Center for Societal Development Studies (CSDS) study of Nike’s
Indonesia factory working conditions to that of a study Urban
Community Mission (UCM) conducted in 1999. After giving a brief
overview of each study, I will compare some of the key differences in
the two studies. I conclude that the studies have some amazing
similarities. Both studies interviewed 4,000 workers, many in the same
Nike factories. There are 53,810 Nike workers in Indonesia (CSDS,
2001, Section 1: 2) Both studies indicate that most workers
migrate from parts of Java to escape extreme poverty. Both studies
report that most workers stay at work for three years and leave. Both
studies found significant occurrences of various forms of abuse, but
here the similarity diverges. My
analysis suggests that both studies indicate convincingly that
factories producing for Nike in Indonesia are still characterized by
abusive direct supervisors, inadequate wages, and forced overtime.The purpose of my study is to compare working conditions found
by GA (CSDS) to those found by UCM, as well as to contrast the Nike
working conditions with those of the two BATA factories. Nike has put
considerable dollar resources into promoting the idea that it has
reformed its earlier labor practices in response to the global
anti-sweatshop campaign. But, has this money been well spent.
The UCM study allowed workers to "voice" their concerns in
seven open-ended questions, collected by workers trained in the
mysterious arts and sciences of interviewing and data
collection. The number one concern of the Nike eleven Nike
factories surveyed is "compulsory and non-stop overtime."
Yet, with the scores of questions asked by the GA (CSDS) study, there
was not room for this question; not room, as we shall see, after
Nike's corporate staff took editorial control over the questionnaire
(editing in and out various questions), the training of the
data-collectors, and spliced in their own remedial plan into the
report of findings on both the Nike and Global Alliance web sites. In
short, the less expensive UCM study seems to have produced results
that have more face validity, since they allow the workers to openly
voice their concerns.

PART
I. Introducing the Two Studies

Urban
Community Mission (UCM) of
Jakarta was established in 1983 by the Java District of the HKBP
Church. UCM aims to assist people to face the challenges of rapid
industrialization and urbanization in large cities like Jakarta- in particular the impact of these processes on the working
lives of urban factory workers, many of whom have recently made the
transition from rural village life interviewed 4,000 workers
from 13 factories (2,300 from 5 sport shoe factories producing for
Nike; 1,200 from 6 clothing factories producing for Nike and 500 from
2 sport shoe factories producing for BATA, a local Indonesian
company). The UCM (1999) study was commissioned by Press For Change
(Jeff Ballinger, CEO) to conduct this survey of workers producing for
Nike and BATA. Jeff Ballinger is the founder and director of Press for
Change, a New Jersey-based consumer-information NGO that monitors
workers’ rights issues in Asia. He went to Asia to teach trade union
training programs for the AFL-CIO in 1984 and returned to the United
States in 1995. The research was funded by a grant from Joshua Mailman
and the Joshua Mailman Charitable Trust.The sport shoe factories producing for Nike in this study are
(Pt. Nikomas Gemilang, Pt. Nasa, Pt. Stawin, Pt. Adis, and Pt. Doson).
The six Nike clothing factories are Pt. Citra Abadi Sejati L and II, P
Dayup Ino, Pt Tuntex Cikupa, Pt Tuntex Cakung, Pt Konaan, and Pt
Bintang Adi Busana. The two BATA factories are Pt Bata Jakarta and
Purwakarta. The survey was conducted between September 10 and October
18, 1999, and the report was released in December (UCM, 1999).

Until the next study was conducted, the UCM research was the most
comprehensive attempt to investigate working conditions in Nike's
Indonesian factories.

"Workers
Voices," the Global Alliance report was conducted by Center for
Societal Development Studies (CSDS)
of Atma Jaya University in Jakarta. The CSDS (2001) report summarizes
interviews with more than 4,450 workers in nine Nike factories in
Indonesia; the study was funded almost exclusively by Nike (CSDS,
2001; O’Rourke, 2001). Nike
gave a total $7.6 million to Global Alliance (GA) for several years’
work.These nine Nike factories
employ 53,810 workers.The
report (CSDS, 2001) prepared for GA indicates 4,000 workers (6.2% of
the total workforce) interviewed face-to-face, and 450 participated in
focus group discussions.Proportional
random sampling was used to enlist the voluntary responses of the
4,450 workers (controlling for proportionate representation of males
and females, education background, and married or single status).
However, Nike required that union representatives not be sampled.A review of the
methodology of the study reveals that Nike staff members had its hand
in all phases of the study, from design, sampling, interview training,
data-cleaning, writing parts of the report, to disseminating the
results in an interim report (which contains Nike's equivocations and
its plans for reform). In short, there was little that could be called
"independent" in this study. We will review this claim in
the next sections. In Part II, we look at several key study
differences.

PART
II. SOME KEY STUDY DIFFERENCES

RESEARCH
DESIGN- One
of the more starling differences in the two studies is that the UCM
research design included a direct comparison of wages and working
conditions between Nike sport shoe factories and the BATA sport shoe
factories. Nike has claimed for
two decades that no other sport shoe company has better working
conditions, especially those of a indigenous variety; the implication
being tested then is whether a local shoe factory had conditions any
better than a global transnational corporation's subcontractors.
UCM (1999)
found, for example, that BATA workers are being paid wages equal to or
better than those being paid to Nike sport shoe workers - 42% of the
workers surveyed were earning a basic monthly wage of more than
Rp. 300,000 ($US 41) per month, compared with only 16% of Nike sport
shoe workers. On the other hand, 44% of the BATA workers
surveyed are on very low pay, earning less than Rp. 250,000 ($US
34) per month. BATA employs temporary contract workers and pays
them at a lower rate to compete for international contract work; full
time workers enjoy wage advantages.

The
UCM Jakarta study also provides a contrast of Nike garment and Nike
shoe factories, pointing out that wages are significantly lower in
Nike clothing factories. 31% of the 1,200 Nike apparel workers
surveyed by UCM reported receiving a basic wage of less than Rp.
250,000 ($US 34) a month
for a standard week.There
are also wage differences in the CSDS study among the 9 factories, but
there is no indications of which ones produce garments versus shoes.
Such a contrast would be quite helpful in investigating relative
working conditions, and relative reported incidents of various forms
of abuse (see next section). In the CSDS study, 3.8% of the
workers reported getting lower wages than the legal minimum wages at
the time, from $23 to $31 (depending upon the factory).

The
UCM (1999) study trained workers to carry out the interviews, while
CSDS (2001) trained Indonesian university students to conduct the
data-collection phase of their study. UCM points out that workers are
able to gain rapport and confidence of fellow workers. UCM also
stresses the likelihood of incidents being under-reported, since “workers
are well aware that if it is reported to factory management that they
have been critical of the factory they may be the first to be ‘let
go’ if a drop in orders leads to workers being laid off” (UCM,
1999: 6). The CSDS report stresses the researchers' focus on
confidentiality, yet the study teams that supervised the university
student interviewers, formed at each of their nine sites included
factory managers, and the training was done by a
"tri-partite" group composed of GA consultants, Nike
corporate staff members, and CSDS academics. In both methods, workers
fearing retaliation may well understate problems in their factory, for
fear their comments will be reported to management.

In the UCM method there was less direct involvement of Nike corporate
staff in the research design, execution, and write up.

In
terms of how the reports articulate the findings, the two studies
differ in how politely the worker comments are couched in the
reporting of their findings. In the CSDS study couches its language in
benign terms, such as noting how workers receive “harsh or
unkind words” while in the UCM study the language is more direct,
and includes actual workers' language, including such insults as “You
Fool!”, “You Idiot!”, “You’re Lazy!”, and “You’re
Stupid!"Both
studies do report workers being insulted by being referred to as “You
Dog!.” But the UCM study uses also the more vulgar insults like “F_ _ _
You!” and You Whore!” and points out how Nike front line supervisors have been trained
to use such language particularly in the sport shoe factories
(Hancock, 1997 reports similar findings). The conclusion reached
by UCM's authors are that Nike has not implemented promised changes in
how supervisors punish their workers. By contrast, CSDS
rationalizes that it the high-pressure target (quota) systems and
deadlines of the Athletic Apparel industry that causes the direct
supervisors to engage in more physical, sexual, and verbal abuse.
In short, CSDS argues that abusive management practices are not the
fault of supervisors, but are the result of a high pressure work
environment of factories competing in the global economy.

As
a corporate consulting report, CSDS (2001) is careful to point out
that if they “learn of alleged violations it reports these to
corporate members,” but not to other authorities, nor to the workers
who participated in the study, or the union members who did not. And
“since it [the report] deals with worker perceptions, it is
difficult to determine with certainty whether specific instances of
code violations occurred.”When
violations were noted in the studies, information was turned over to
Nike-compliance staff members, but for “confidentiality reasons”
the report indicates Nike staff was not given enough specific detail
to follow up on any specific reported incidents, and therefore the
study has neither the “depth or scope” to follow-up on reported
incidents of verbal, sexual, or physical abuse (CSDS, 2001, see
limitations #1).“Nike
and the Global Alliance are unable to identify respondents or
perpetrators to investigate specific allegations” (CSCS, 2001: 25).There was also data cleaning to eliminate any data that showed
“inconsistencies” of interpretation through “data quality
control” (see issue#2). Eight questions pertaining to job
satisfaction and six on personal development (using scale responses)
were dropped from the final report (issue #3).

Another
alternative, would be to include the messy data, and let the academic
community, as well as the work force, determine what is too ambiguous.

According
to the report (CSDS, 2001) the research “is not designed to monitor
these workplaces’ compliance with company codes of conduct or with
national law.”The
stated purpose of the CSDS study is “an initiative intended to lead
to greater worker satisfaction and improved quality of working life
for factory workers.”A
skeptic's reading of such argument, would lead to the conclusion that
GA (CSDS)'s covert goal is to be a public relations shield for the
Nike Corporation.

Independence
- As stated earlier, the
research process is supervised by “Nike’s corporate responsibility
representative” (Section II: 12)who coordinates with the CSDS study
team and the GA overseeing partner. Based on the results of the first
study of Vietnam and Thailand, the research protocol was fine-tuned
based upon “lessons learned” which seems on the surface a way to
improve the research process (this was done in a meeting with a Nike
representative, Section II: 12). "The survey was further refined
with new ideas from both GA and Nike, with changes relating primarily
to workplace issues" (Section II: 12). And "questions were
reworded" the report says (p. 12) "in order to eliminate
biases from the respondents" (p. 12). But, when the
refinement includes the counsel of corporate staff, the goal of
"independence" is compromised, if not subverted, and bias is
turned toward corporate interests and concerns. The tri-partite
(GA, CSDS, Nike) also approved the “final version” of the
questionnaire used in all nine Indonesian factories.

Please
note the absence of worker participation in the tri-partite detailed
in the CSDS (2001) report; experts from Nike, GA, and CSDS
participate, but worker participation is a form of bias. The workers
are treated as "in-place" metering devices, to produce the
research. Finally, in terms of who wrote what, interim report (CSDS,
2001) contains 43 pages authored by Nike corporate staff (the
"Nike Remediation Plan," i.e. pp. 64-106) and 7 pages of
summaries of various ILO reports (pp. 13-19) about Indonesia's
economy; the other 56 pages (53.8%) is devoted to reporting and
interpreting survey results. We simply do not know how much of the 56
pages was approved, authored, or reviewed by Nike corporate staff
before the Interim Report was released, first to the London Financial
Times, and then placed on the Nike web site.

The
CSDS questionnaire instrument was pilot tested in several factories,
and more questions were dropped. Project teams of 8-10 members line
operators, 1 or 2 union officials, and one factory manager. “Nike
requested union representatives not be included in the in-depth
interviews” process (CSDS, 2001). Also local community groups were
not included in the research study, since according to CSDS (2001) “local
laws prohibiting community-based research without a permit.”26 data-collectors, mostly students, were recruited from
Indonesian universities (4 quit due to personal reasons). Again, I
point out that the tri-partite panel of GA, CSDA, and Nike (staff
members) did the orientations and was in direct control of the process
throughout; this violates all known definitions of independent
research or independent monitoring. The study lasted from August to
October 2000; focus groups (4 at 8 factories, and 13 at the 9th
one) were completed February 16, 2001. It is GA’s policy not to use
live-recording equipment during focus groups or interviews. Results
will be presented to Project Team members and factory management once
all analysis is completed, and evidently not to workers who provided
the data.

The
interviewers from GA (GA, 2000 Assessment Protocol) introduce
themselves as university scholars:

“My
name (introduce yourself), interviewer of Center for Societal
Development Studies, Atma Jaya University, Jakarta. I am here
today working with the Global Alliance to conduct a survey about
factory workers’ job and life experiences and their future
aspirations .My name (introduce yourself), interviewer of Center
for Societal Development Studies, Atma Jaya University, Jakarta. I
am here today working with the Global Alliance to conduct a survey
about factory workers’ job and life experiences and their future
aspirations.”

Why did they not introduce themselves as students from local
Indonesian universities?

UCM Study Approach - UCM trained
twenty-five workers in the survey process, including interview
techniques (as compared
to twenty-six university students used by CSDS) The workers carried
out their interviews either in the factories during breaks or after
work. The UCM interviewers introduced themselves as fellow
workers.

It
was felt that workers would feel more comfortable talking to
another worker, and more likely to trust that their comments would
remain confidential (UCM, 1999: 8).

A weakness of the study is
that UCM did not use random sampling methods. Instead the workers
collected a quota of responses from the thirteen factories. In
all 4,000 workers were interviewed: 2,300 from 5 sport shoe factories
producing for Nike; 1,200 from 6 clothing factories producing for
Nike, and 500 from 2 sport shoe factories producing for BATA.
Both union and non-union members were included in the
interviews.

Table 1: UCM Factories,
Employees, and Sample Size.

Nike Clothing Factories

(1)Total number of workers
employed.

(2) Number of survey
respondents.

Percentages:

Surveyed/ Total workers

PtCitraAbadiSejati I &II

4000

300

07.50

PtDayupIndo

800

250

31.25

PtTuntexCikupa

1800

250

13.89

PtTuntexCakung

800

175

21.88

PtKonaan

5000

125

02.50

PtBintangAdi
Busana

600

100

16.67

Total Nike Clothing
respondents

1200

Nike Shoe Factories

PtNikomasGemilang

24000

950

03.96

Pt.Nasa

6000

200

03.33

Pt. Starwin

4000

336

08.40

Pt. Adis

4000

324

08.10

Pt. Doson

6000

490

08.17

Total Nike Shoe
respondents

2300

Factory

Total number of workers employed.

Number of survey respondents.

PtBataJakarta&Purwakarta

1000

500

50

Total BATA
respondents

500

Total
Workforce in these 12 factories: 58,000

4000

06.90

Table
One was compiled from three different tables in the UCM study. In the
UCM study, 4,000 of 58,000 represents 6.9% (or 6.14% for just Nike workers)of the 58,000
workers in the 12 factories of the UCM study. 6.14% is
comparable to the CSDS (Section II: 15) result of 6.2% (4,000 of
53,810 workers) in the nine factories they interviewed (plus 450 in
focus groups).

The CSDS breakdown of the nine factories, is seven in footwear,
one in apparel, and one in equipment.

Neither study takes the size of the factory (in
number of workers) into account in presenting their results. CSDS does
not tell us if 6.2% is a percentage of the 53,810 or if it is a
percentage held constant by sampling in each of the nine factory
sites. In fact, when you do the division on the total (4000/53810) it
comes to 7.43%. That would suggest that perhaps 6.2% is an average
percentage of workers sampled from each factories. The UCM study
on the other hand, reports how many workers were interviewed in each
factory, which allows findings to be interpreted accordingly. Neither
study does significance tests; they simply report frequencies.

The UCM survey included seven questions

Question 1.What village do you come from?

Question 2.
What is your monthly basic pay?

Question 3.
How many years have you worked at this factory?

Question 4.
Have you seen workers being shouted at or mistreated in this
factory?

Question 5.
Any younger brothers and sisters at home in village?

Question
6. Hasthe trade
union or government ever helped to solve any workerproblem?

Question
7. What is your
major complaint or negative experience regarding your factory?

The
report findings are direct and to the point (28 pages as opposed to
106 for CSDS). For example, the UCM report indicates 1,555 workers the
major complaint was being forced to work excessive overtime without
breaks and for a further 344 it was the difficulties associated with
getting permission for annual leave or menstrual leave. In the Bata
surveys, only 15 of
the 500 workers surveyed identified compulsory overtime as their major
complaint and only 13 prioritized the target system (UCM, 1999: 4). The
overwhelming majority of workers surveyed (93% of Nike sport shoe
workers, 99% of Nike apparel workers and 94% of BATA sport shoe
workers)indicated that
neither the Indonesian government nor the official government union
SPSI had ever helped to solve any of the problems facing workers.

PART
III - Verbal, Physical and Sexual Abuse

VERBAL,
PHYSICAL, AND SEXUAL ABUSE - In
the CSDS Global Alliance study, 56.8% of the respondents have
personally observed a supervisor verbally abuse (Verbal abuse
(shouting, swearing, rudeness) another worker in the past year. In the
UCM study, 57% of the sport shoe workers and 59% of the clothing
workers reported they had seen workers being shouted at or subject to
cruel treatment by their supervisors. In this statistic the two
studies are remarkably similar in their findings. Both studies
reported punishments that included unwanted touching (slapped on the
buttock), physical abuse (being slapped), being forced to run around
the factory, and having to stand for two hours in the factory yard
(i.e. “being dried in the sun”).Both studies focus on the high pressure of the work
environment. Both studies report that workers hate their canteens,
must work in these factories whatever their conditions to pay the
school fees of their children. The UCM study reports that 3,500 Nike
workers have 6,572 younger siblings in home villages that rely on
their support. The CSDS study reports on the mothers who work for
Nike.

The
UCM study asked, “Have you seen workers being shouted at or
mistreated in this factory?”Workers
gave examples of being pulled by the ears, pinched or slapped on the
buttock while being verbally insulted. Both studies reported workers
being taking into the tropical sun and forced either to stand or to
run around the factory yard (“dried in the sun”).

In
the Nike Shoe plants, commonly used words used by supervisors,
include: You Fool!, You Idiot!, You Pig!, You Monkey!, You
Dog!.,F_ _ _ [word removed]
you!, You Whore!, You Animal!, You’re Lazy!, You’re Stupid!
In the clothing factories, You Fool!, You Idiot!, You Pig!, You
Monkey!, You Dog!.,F_ _ _ [word removed] you!, You Whore!, You Animal!, You’re Lazy!, You’re
Stupid! In the BATA factories, You Fool!, You Idiot!,You’re Lazy!You’re Stupid!

According
to Hancock (1997), in his 1996 study ("Nike's Satanic Factories
in West Java"), a Nike contractor, PT Feng Tay in Banjaran. The
Nike factory in Banjarmasin is a Taiwanese joint
venture company, and is usually called by its Taiwanese name Feng Tay
by the local people. The Taiwan managed factory trains its factory
managers to punish female workers who were working too slowly by
systematically insulting them using phrases such as “F_ _ _ [word removed]You!”
and “Hurry up and move you Stupid Bitch!” Hancock (1997) also
reported, “The average work day is 11.5 hours and 81% of workers
work seven days a week.” 41% of workers surveyed were under 16.

By
contract, the management practices at the BATA factories while
including being shouted at, had more benign phrases such as “You
Fool!”, “You Idiot!”, “You’re Lazy!”, and “You’re
Stupid.”

Both Studies asked similar questions about Verbal Abuse; this
permits a comparison of the findings of the two studies.

Table
2: Comparisons on Verbal Abuse Questions in UCM Study.

UCM
STUDY

CSDS
STUDY

Responses:

Nike Shoe Factories

Nike Clothing

BATA

Nike Factories

Yes

1309

702

127

2272

No

991

498

373

1728

UCM Nike Shoe

UCM Nike Clothing

UCM BATA

CSDS/GA

Percentages
of

Yes
response

0.569130435

0.585

0.254

0.568

The CSDS study asked,
four types of harassment and abuse questions (sexual comments, sexual
touching, physical abuse, and verbal abuse).Across all factories, there were 56.8% verbal above reports
(across the 6 factories the percentages ranged from a low of 38.4% to
a high of 69.4%. Since the measures are not independent we will use
this item in our contrasts in Table One and Figure One. The UCM study
asked respondents, “(Question 4) “Have
you seen workers being shouted at or mistreated in this factory?”

According to this contrast (Table 2), the BATA factories had
significantly lower rates of verbal abuse reported than any of the
Nike factories, which do not appear to be statistically different (57
to 59% for Nike as compared to 25% for BATA. This result
suggests that there is something fundamentally different about Nike's
program of supervision at its subcontract factories than for that of
the BATA factories. Perhaps it would be a good idea to turn
supervisory training over to BATA supervisors at the Nike factories,
in order to implement practices that would lower the amount of verbal
and other forms of abuse.

Comparison Among Factories of
Reported Unwelcome Harassment and Abuse

The CSDS question
asked: In the last year have you personally ever received the
following harassments from a line supervisor or manager in this
factory (read for respondents)? (All questions are Yes or No
options; reported scores are % of Yes answers). Note in the question
response options (see Table 3), the workers completing the interview
have a fixed response scale (a through d), plus "other" but
given the large number of questions being asked and the time limit of
60 minutes per interview, there was not time, it seems, to list the
"other" response itmes.

Comparison Among Factories of
OBSERVED Unwelcome Harassment and Abuse

Question: In the
last year have you personally ever OBSERVED the following harassments
from a line supervisor or manager in this factory (read for
respondents)? (All questions are Yes or No options; reported
scores are % of Yes answers).

Physical
Abuse – 14% of
the workers reported that they have observed some form of physical
abuse (p. 39). The range was from 1% to 13.8% across the 9 factories.
This consisted of the supervisor throwing objects, hitting, pushing,
and shoving workers. Focus group results were included in the report
on the issue of physical abuse.The
abuse comes from a number of expatriate and line supervisors. “Workers
reported observing an expatriate who slapped a young worker and
another who threw a book at a worker when she was slow to bring the
materials to the sewing division” (p. 39). In more than one focus
group workers reported that line supervisors would go “to the
dormitory to bring a sick worker back to work” (p. 39). Others
reported how in one factory the “punishment is given to late workers
by exposing them to the sun for about two hours, requiring them to
clean the toilets or run around the factory grounds.”Further, the “kinds of abuse most commonly reported in focus
groups at three factories include throwing out soles at workers or
hitting them. Other physical punishment includes denying use of the
toilet” (p. 40).Cases
of physical abuse escalate when supervisors are “under pressure to
meet target, orders are late, or materials do not arrive on time”
(p. 40).

QUESTION:
Does the direct supervisor use harsh/unkind words when speaking to
you, and if so, how often? (always, sometimes, rarely, never)?

Table
5 – Frequency of Supervisor use of Harsh/Unkind Words (CSDS)

Frequency

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

F9

Always

37.8

4.1

3.1

2.2

2.6

0.2

2.5

25.0

19.0

Sometimes

41.8

12.8

10.7

14.2

16.3

10.0

20.6

47.3

38.0

Rarely

11.9

4.8

6.0

15.9

8.1

5.7

10.6

11.7

12.7

Never

8.2

78.3

80.2

67.7

72.8

84.2

66.1

16.0

30.4

In the UCM study, the workers were given
an open ended question (as opposed to the fixed multiple choice
response item used by CSDS). Question 7
asks,What is your major complaint or negative experience regarding
your factory?
I took the number of mentions in each type of factory and developed a
weighted measure to permit comparison (i.e. the number of mentions
divided by the total mentions, not including category of no
complaints). This permits standard comparisons between the five
Nike shoe factories, the six Nike clothing factories and the two BATA
factories.

Difficulties in
getting permission for annual leave or menstrual leave

208

136

9.75%

11.86%

0.00%

Cruel Treatment

101

29

15

4.74%

2.53%

3.68%

Target System

88

48

13

4.13%

4.18%

3.19%

Hot Condition in
Working Room

68

18

61

3.19%

1.57%

14.95%

Wage Deductions as
Punishment

0

0

64

0.00%

0.00%

15.69%

Lack of Transport
facilities

59

20

0

2.77%

1.74%

0.00%

Non Nutritious meal

62

23

0

2.91%

2.01%

0.00%

Wage and Overtime work system

35

27

6

1.64%

2.35%

1.47%

Lack of water in
toilet/lack of drinking water/lack of work tools/lack of
facilities

39

22

0

1.83%

1.92%

0.00%

Contract System

0

0

32

0.00%

0.00%

7.84%

Lack of medical
facilities

29

0

0

1.36%

0.00%

0.00%

Seniority Pay

28

23

0

1.31%

2.01%

0.00%

Praying rooms space
narrow

23

0

0

1.08%

0.00%

0.00%

NoLabour Social System

15

0

11

0.70%

0.00%

2.70%

Job transfer, very
often without reason

10

0

0

0.47%

0.00%

0.00%

No Menstrual Leave

0

0

11

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

Lack of Security
Facilities

0

0

9

0.00%

0.00%

2.21%

Sexual Abuse

3

0

0

0.14%

0.00%

0.00%

No Trade Union

0

4

0

0.00%

0.35%

0.00%

No Complaints

167

53

0

6.77%

4.23%

0.00%

Totals

2300

1200

408

less;
no com; plaints

2133

1147

408

The results in the above table confirm once again (controlling
for sample size differences), that working conditions vary between
BATA and Nike. Compulsory non-stop overtime (contrast last three
columns) is the number one complaint for workers at both types of Nike
factories, but it is not among the top four complaints for BATA (again
controlling for sample size). The importance of this finding is that
while the CSDS study focused much of its analysis on sexual
harassment, this is not the main concern of workers. The results
of the CSDS reflect the limitations of forced-choice questioning
methods, as opposed to a method, such as used by UCM that permits
workers to "freely" list their complaints. The
relative magnitudes is interesting as well. 38.4% mention the
compulsory overtime in the Nike sport shoe factories and 64.3 % in the
clothing apparel ones. The contrast is quite dramatic and
suggests that workers in Nike's clothing apparel are still faced with
this form of abuse, after years of attempts to stop the practice.

For the BATA respondents, the big concern
is low wages, with 41.9% of all complaints. Low wages is the second
most mentioned item for Nike sports shoe workers, 25.6% of all
complaints. Sexual abuse (.14%) was mentioned at the Nike shoe
factory, but not at the Nike clothing or the BATA factories. And
at the Nike shoe factory, sexual abuse, was last on their list of
items to complain about. Again, these result suggest that the
CSDS study is not tapping the fundamental concerns of the Nike work
force, and is focusing its report on items that were available for
workers to be responding to in the survey. Nevertheless, it is
instructive to look at one of the few response items that did seem to
matter, the direct supervisor's use of harsh or unkind words spoken to
workers.

Figure
4: Factories Sorted from Best to Worst on Question of Direct
Supervisor uses harsh/unkind words when speaking to workers (CSDS).

Some
common examples of reported use of harsh/unkind words by a direct
supervisor include “insults about workers’ intelligence, calling
workers insulting animals, using angry and harsh tones” (p. 40).
Figure 3 suggests that use of abusive language is significantly higher
in factories F9, F8, and F1.“”In three factories” according to the focus
groups, “respondents reported becoming accustomed to hearing these
unkind words, and report becoming use[d] to it” (p. 40). In all 9
factories there were reports of supervisors “telling workers to go
ahead and dies, or wait until you pass out first, in response to
requests to use the health services or take sick leave” (p. 40).

In all of the factories, focus group discussions, workers said
they believe verbal and physical abuse can be the result of cascading
pressures when top management reprimands middle management, middle
management reprimands line supervisors, and the workers are verbally
or physically punished by the line supervisor” (p. 40).

The
working conditions are described as follows by the focus group
responses, “verbal punishment is often the result of not reaching
targeted outputs, sewing machines breaking down, products that are
rejected, workers who can’t keep up with the line, or workers
requesting annual leave” (p. 40.

What
are the consequences of sexual harassment at the Nike workplace? “Sexual
harassment can lead to frustration, loss of self-esteem, absenteeism,
and decreased productivity… also has an effect on workers’ morale
and commitment to the factory” (p. 41). Some quit their jobs.“Allowing a climate of tolerance of sexual harassment leaves
the enterprise with a poor image, and with a growing number of
countries where court action may successfully result in damages and
fines, financial risks are increasing” (p. 41).

TABLE
7 - Relation between Sexual Abuse and Stress Questions

in CSDS

Sexual
Comments Question

Reported
Feelings of Stress Question

N

Never
%

1or
more times %

Never
Observed

2947

73

27

Observed
but did not Receive

739

58

42

Received
Sexual Comments

312

44

56

TABLE
8 - Relation between Verbal Abuse and Stress Questions

in CSDS

Verbal
Abuse Question

Reported
Feelings of Stress Question

N

Never
%

1-2
times %

3-5
times %

5+
times %

Never
Observed

1640

79.0

15.1

3.5

2.4

Observed
but did not Receive

1152

66.1

22.7

5.9

5.3

Received
Verbal Abuse

1206

54.8

24.8

9.4

11.0

In
both Tables 3 and 4, the results indicate when the sample is split
according to the relative observed/received sexual comments or verbal
abuse and associated to the stress question, seeing and receiving
either abuse adds to one’s stress at work. The researchers qualify
the results by pointing out that other things in life can cause one
stress.Still the results
do appear to be statistically significant and in the expected
direction.

PART
IV - Wages

The
two studies come to different conclusions on the number of hours
workers work. For UCM workers reported they put in more than 72 hours
a week, while the CSDS study the researchers in their summary assert
they work only 7 hours a day, six days a week, or 42 hours.

However, the CSDS study does not ask about forced overtime, as
discussed, misses a major item of concern to workers in the UCM study.

WAGES
– at the time of the UCM study, 84% of the Nike sport shoe workers
interviewedindicated
that they were earning a basic wage of between Rp.
251,000 ($US 34) and Rp. 300,000 ($US 41) per month for a standard 40
hour week. The legal minimum for the area is Rp. 230,000 ($US32) per
month. For the CSDS study, 96.2% reported their wages were
above the legal (regional) minimum wage of US $32.9 (base monthly
wage).The average base
monthly wage in the CSDS study varied by factory from a low of Rp
294,140 (US $33.8) to a high of Rp 342,790 (US$ 39.4). Also, the CSDS
study indicated that 3.8% of the workers reported getting lower wages
than the legal minimum wages at the time of the questioning, from $23
to $31 (depending upon the factory). CSDS plays up how much more the
Nike wages are relative to other manufacturing jobs, while UCM argues
that with the Asian economic crisis, prices of many food stuffs have
more than doubled and with inflation the real wages of Nike workers
are still well below what they were in July 1997. The CSDS study point
out that the government raised minimum wage rates before and after
their study. But the UCM study cautions that such increases did not
cost Nike very much, because of the relative inflation level in
Indonesia compared to other parts of the world.

The
CSDS (2001: 29-30) says workers were asked a question about the base
monthly salary without fringe benefits, bonuses or overtime, then a
question about their total monthly salary. 96.2% reported their wages
were above the legal (regional) minimum wage of US $32.9 (base monthly
wage).The average base
monthly wage varied by factory from a low of Rp 294,140 (US $33.8) to
a high of Rp 342,790 (US$ 39.4). 3.8% of the workers reported getting
lower wages than the legal minimum wages at the time, from $23 to $31
(depending upon the factory).

WITH
BONUS, OVERTIME, & FRINGE BENEFITS – the workers response was Rp
471,550 (US$ 54) to Rp 614,150(US$
70.6).The standard is
six working day a week with salaries of $2.26 to $2.94 per day. The
researchers assumed seven hour days can came up with a figure of 32 to
42 cents per hour, noting that hourly rate for Indonesian production
workers is 17 cents an hour.

The
CSDS, 2001) interim report is ironic, citing evidence from “a formal
report from the ILO (International Labor Organization, 1997) indicates
that 53% of the reasons given for strikes in Indonesia related to
workers’ dissatisfaction with wages they receive.” The CSDS report
goes on to cite ILO statistics about manufacturing wage rates in
Indonesia. They asked an obvious question, as to whether there were in
pay increases in the past year (said increases as stated in CSDS
report were mandated by the Indonesian government). January, 2001 for
example the Indonesian government mandated a minimum wage increase
fromRp 286,000 (US
$32.9)toRp 344,257(US
#39.6).What rewards or
recognition did you receive for your work in this factory in the last
12 months (read forrespondents)?
(Answer is Yes or No).

a. Award

b. Promotion

c. Pay increase

d. Bonus

e. Supervisor/management asked for ideas

f.I represented
the factory in some events

g.Other
(specify): _______________________

The categories of this question do not
tap the kinds of concerns coming through in the open-ended response
questions in the UCM survey. Most notable is the absence of the
issue of wage level adequacy and forced overtime.

Conclusions

Contrary to Nike’s repeated
claims, its systems of controls have not been able to curtail
systematic verbal, physical and sexual abuse by its contracted factory
management.There are
differences in the levels of abuse reported in the sport Shoe and
Garment factories in the UCM study and among the nine factories in the
CSDS study.Workers wages are for the most part above the legal
minimum wage, but not sufficient to meet basic survival needs of
Indonesian workers.

Differences in the study
methodologies were the reliance of Global Alliance on Nike to control
and supervise all phases of the study. The most obvious and visible
control being the exclusion of a whole class of workers from being
surveyed or included in focus groups, any which had union leadership.
In comparing the two reports the PR gloss and back peddling of the
CSDS study is most obvious. In future attempts, Nike would be advised
to engage in “independent” research practices, rather than
controlling everything from the design of questions, refusal to
include certain questions in the results report, the training of the
researchers, the orientation of the data-collectors, and the
dissemination of the results.

The UCM study included a
comparison between Nike shoe factories and Nike apparel factories
along with a comparison to two non-Nike shoe factories. This type of
comparison allows monitors, factory management, and transnational
corporate management to ascertain if different production contexts
harbor differing working conditions.In contrast to Nike’s frequent claims that its factory
conditions are better than those of the local industry, the Bata
factories were better with regards to supervisor abuses of power and a
bit better in terms of wages. Both could stand improvement.

It can be concluded that while producing a quantity of many charts
and graphs, the CSDS study fails to capture the basic and fundamental
concerns of workers, gathered in simple and direct seven question
study conducted by UCM. Involving the workers in the design of
the questions is fundamental to doing "independent"
assessment of basic working condition assessments. Finally, it
can safely be concluded that the Nike Corporation has significant
control over the research and reporting process, and has introduced
significant managerial bias into the design and results of this
survey.

It is time to do some much more rigorous work, that uses analyses
sensitive to the needs of workers, and really does include the
"Voice of the worker" all through the process. Then and only
then will we be able to say with any degree of certainty that the
violations of human rights have stopped and Nike is doing more than a
highly expensive ($7.6 million dollar PR campaign.

In conclusion, this analysis shows, in my opinion, that when given
open-ended response options, the kinds of issues workers bring up are
significantly different than what the force-choice (multiple choice)
option given by GA reveals. Nike is muddying the waters, asking a lot
of questions of little importance compared to the major concerns of
forced overtime and inadequate wages. When I controlled for sample
size differences, it also shows that BATA does a better job.